By Indranil Banerjea
The M & M combination, though bitter political enemies in Uttar Pradesh politics rescued the beleaguered UPA government from combined opposition onslaught by abstaining during the vote on FDI, and the Manmohan Singh government won the battle by a margin of 35 votes in Lok Sabha. With the BSP and SP not voting in the 545- seat Lok Sabha, the majority mark came down from 273 to 251. In the final tally, 253 MPs voted for FDI and 218 voted for it.
The second related motion of Trinamool Congress seeking to modify the FEMA notification — which is needed to operationalise the FDI policy — was also defeated by a margin of 30 votes, 224 voting for it and 254 against it.
The BJP was least perturbed after the defeat: it pointed out that the voting shows the government does not even have a simple majority of 272 in the House, as it could not muster that number despite all kinds of manipulations. For the third time, the government was reduced to a minority — the first time on a constitutional vote, the second time on price rise and now on FDI.
Both Mulayam Singh Yadav and Ms. Mayawati are facing charges of disproportionate assets cases, and the CBI has filed chargesheet in the Supreme Court. But the government is not pressing hard to prosecute both the leaders because of their political utility — during the time of nuclear deal and now for getting the FDI retail bill passed by Lok Sabha. But this magic will not work in Rajya Sabha where in spite of M & M combination doesn’t have the requisite number to bail out the government.
As it is there is a clear mismatch between the Indian street and Parliament. For, no longer does the majority in Parliament reflect the opinion of the aam aadmi. That is the clear message of the vote in the Lok Sabha on the question of allowing a majority stake to foreigners in multi- brand retail.
The government won a pyrrhic victory when the motion moved by Sushma Swaraj, the Leader of the Opposition, rejecting FDI in multi- brand retail was lost. The vote marked the triumph of backroom management. The Opposition made a most sensible and convincing case against allowing 51 per cent FDI in multi- brand retail.
But considerations other than merit or demerit of the FDI issue seemed to have prevailed. As Swaraj said, a majority of the speakers made a case against FDI in retail; yet, if they still felt obliged to vote in its favour it was regardless of the strong case against FDI. Paradoxically, speakers from both the Samajwadi Party and the BSP argued most convincingly against FDI in retail. But when the time came to translate that opposition into an effective action they merely walked out, thus helping the government to defeat the Opposition motion.
Such hypocrisy has all along informed the politics of both Mulayam Singh Yadav and Mayawati. Unless electors are allowed to penalise such leaders, unless they are able to hold them accountable, there would be no stopping such cynical conduct, such opportunism.
It may be that both Yadav and Mayawati are more concerned about saving their own skins from the CBI in the disproportionate income cases rather than they about protecting the interests of 40 million people engaged in retail trade and about two hundred million dependent on them for their livelihoods. It is remarkable that the above figures of the number of people employed in the nation- wide unorganised retail trade were given to the Lok Sabha by none other than Yadav himself. Yet, knowing that the decision to allow 51 per cent FDI in multi- brand retail trade could harm the interests of at least two hundred million Indians, Yadav chose to abstain from the vote and thus paved the way for that harm to visit such a large section of the population. Yadav and Mayawati really made laughing stocks of themselves, opposing the FDI in retail and yet facilitating it. Such dishonesty is worse than plain deal- making.
As for the quality of the two day debate, as Swaraj noted, 14 group leaders out of a total of 18 who participated in the debate argued against the retail FDI. They feared that eventually the small trader, the marginal farmer, the shop assistant, the small and middle- level producer of goods and services could be made redundant by foreign retail behemoths once they are able to strike deep roots in the country.
Because they have deep pockets and can bear losses for a long period until competition is neutralised, cash- rich western retail behemoths will exploit the huge market of a billion- plus Indians for improving their own bottom- line. They wouldn’t come here to do charity. No, they would come here to make money and very big money at that, given the huge size of the Indian market.
Two ministers, namely, Anand Sharma and Kapil Sibal, pleaded the case for the FDI, but failed in the task. Sharma was unable to convince that the government had kept its word on consulting all stakeholders. He tied himself in knots, arguing consensus and consultations did not mean unanimity, though he was unable to prove that the government had indeed consulted all parties.
As for Sibal, he cut a very sorry figure, declaring how foreign retail stores would find it difficult to open stores in big cities because of the astronomically high real estate costs and how those who would patronise these stores would have to drive miles to reach them.
Now, if the aam aadmi cannot avail their services, one may ask, why was the government so solicitous of the concerns of the relatively small car — owning middle — and upper- income sections.
As for the back- end cold storage facilities which Sibal talked about, it ought to have occurred to the glib talking minister that in spite of a long- standing permission foreign investors had shied away from setting up cold storage chains here.
The conclusion is inescapable. There is external pressure to allow FDI in multi- brand retail. Otherwise, the government would not have gone out on a limb to take such a controversial decision, especially when it lacked a majority in both Houses of Parliament. Having managed the vote in the Lok Sabha, there is every likelihood the government might manage both Yadav and Mayawati in the Rajya Sabha as well. But the real test would come when major foreign retail chains still remain reluctant to set up shop here.
The sharp division in the polity will act as a strong deterrent, especially when at the popular level big foreign retail chains evoke a certain antagonism. INAV